Template talk:Former TLC Programming

Background
As of the last time I checked, the latest version (which was then the "12:40, 29 August 2020" "revision") of this template, had a red link for that was displayed as "The Big Garage".

some " " details
You can [feel free to] SKIP this sub-section,. . . if you don't have time for some " " details.

An "old" web page, which I found at https://en.wikipedia-on-ipfs.org/wiki/The_Big_Garage.html contained a sentence displayed as:"'This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/5/2016.'"and the word [displayed there, as] "Wikipedia" was a hyperlink pointing to the URL 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Garage?oldid=742746088'.

That "partly pink" web page -- (the one at that URL ending with "?oldid=742746088") -- contained, (after the big pink box), a sentence that said: << "The revision #742746088 belongs to a deleted page. You can view it; details can be found in the deletion log." >>.

... and there, the phrase "view it" was a hyperlink pointing to the very disappointing URL
 * ' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=The_Big_Garage&timestamp=20161005145105&diff=prev '.

However, for some users at least (such as me ... apparently) that part about "You can view it" may not [always] be true. The web page at "the very disappointing URL" (see above) said: You do not have permission to view a page's deleted history, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers. under a sorta "section heading" that said [it was named] "Permission error".

However, that seemed to be implying that (for someone NOT in one of those four groups) there would be no way to find out what that version of that article used to say before it had gotten "banned" (or ... maybe [it was more like] << deleted, in the sense of "banned" >>) (Ya think?) from Wikipedia ... and [if so, then] that is kinda misleading, because no [current / as of "today"] "user access restrictions" on the web site << "https://en.wikipedia.org/" >> can "PREVENT" me from being able to just go to the "old" web page [mentioned above] which is still 'out there', on the web, at the URL https://en.wikipedia-on-ipfs.org/wiki/The_Big_Garage.html ... at least, if am able to somehow figure out how to find the URL for that "old" web page. [Spoiler alert:] I think I had found it -- (iirc) -- via a "search engine" lookup ... having as its "search results page", a web page with the URL -- [that is, "at" the URL] -- 'https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Big+Garage+Wikipedia'.

What should be done?
I realize that one of the options would be ... to just leave it as a red link ... perhaps without even giving any "explanation".

Another option (of course) -- and this might be better -- would be to delete the entry for [the 'erstwhile' main-space article about] "The Big Garage" ... that is, to delete that entry completely from being a part of this template.

Another option might be (and, if this is not correct, then please forgive me; I am not doing it, I am just asking a question about it!) to change the entry in this template to point to a different URL. Instead of pointing to the (sorta "default" red link URL)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Big_Garage&action=edit&redlink=1

... "MAYBE" it could point to (say) that ["en.wikipedia-on-ipfs.org"] URL given (above) in the "Background" section ... namely, the URL https://en.wikipedia-on-ipfs.org/wiki/The_Big_Garage.html.

Any comments?
Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:REDLINK, a direct wikicode link to a page that does not exist can be used if the topic is expected to be notable. We would not bypass this by giving a URL and particularly not point to an archive page of the deleted page (it was deleted from Wikipedia for a reason: that it is not of suitable quality for our mainspace). In this case I believe the link and associated text should be removed because navboxes are there for readers to navigate Wikipedia articles, not maintain a list of all items associated with a topic, and the expired PROD indicates that the topic is not notable. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)